Ocean Gardens Care Center
64 11 Beach Channel Drive, Arverne, NY 11692 · For profit - Corporation · 280 certified beds · (718) 945-0700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568, F0570)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 34.2% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.0% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.6% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.1% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.3% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 71.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.0% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.5% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.61 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.03 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 85.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 71 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.9–16.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 85.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 57.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 74.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 4.0–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 280 beds and averages 266.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.59 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.46 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
35 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-03-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during survey, the facility failed to ensure that a resident environment remained free of accident hazards over which the facility has control and provides supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. This was evident for one (1) out of five (5) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #1 who requires two (2)-person assists for bed mobility and transfers, was observed on 02/28/2026 at 10:00 AM with a burn to their left thigh, which was later assessed as a second-degree full thickness burn. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings are:The facility policy titled Accident/Incident Protocols last revision date of 01/2026 states it is the policy of the facility to investigate all accidents and incidents and provide interventions in an effort to prevent reoccurrences, where possible. The Registered Nurse will notify the Administrator and Director of Nursing of any occurrence involving alleged abuse, neglect, or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-05-19 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a survey, the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from physical abuse. This was evident in one (1) (Resident #1) out of two (2) residents reviewed and sampled for abuse. Specifically, on 04/20/2026 at about 12:45 PM, in the resident's dining room, Resident #1 suddenly grabbed Certified Nursing Assistant #1's left breast when Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was feeding Resident #1. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 reacted to having her breast suddenly grabbed by pushed or slapped Resident #1's hand. Registered Nurse #1 and Certified Nursing Assistants # 2 were in the dining room and provided conflicting statements regarding if Resident #1 was slapped or Resident #1's hand was pushed away. The findings are: The facility's policy titled, Prohibition of Residents abuse/ neglect and Misappropriation of Property dated 02/01/2008 and last revised 05/16/2025, documented: Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of property. All alleged violations involving mistreatment of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-25 · tag F0836 — patternEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10 SS 713-1.3 - Nursing units(h) Resident bedrooms shall be designed and equipped for adequate nursing care, comfort and privacy of the residents and shall comply with the following:(1) Placement of residents' beds shall be such that a bed may be approached from at least one side and one end. No bed shall be closer than three feet to a window, radiator, or an adjacent bed. Based on interview and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure compliance with the State and Local Laws. Specifically, resident equipment (bed) is not kept at a minimum of 3 feet from the radiator as referenced in N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10 713-1.3 - Nursing units. This resulted in harm to a single resident.On 3/10/2026 - 3/13/2026 between hours of 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM, an abbreviated survey conducted in response to an incident (2791175) and following observations, interviews and documentation review made:In an interview with Maintenance Director on 3/10/2026 at approximately 10:40 AM, stated bed in the room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a survey, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set assessments accurately reflected the resident's status. This was evident in one (1) out of four (4) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 02/03/2026 documented that Resident #1 required two (2) staff to assist them with bed mobility (roll left to right). The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] did not accurately reflected Resident #1's bed mobility status. The Minimum Data Set inaccurately coded Resident #1 as requiring Partial/Moderate assistance (Helper does less than half the effort).The findings include:The facility's policy titled Resident Assessment with a last reviewed date of 10/25/2025 documented it is the policy of the facility to ensure a comprehensive and accurate assessment of residents. The policy stated the assessment will include direct observations, and communication with the residents, as well as communication with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record observation, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #607115 and #2630760), the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or the resident's representative was immediately informed of an accident which resulted in an injury and/or hospitalization. This was evident for two (2) of two (2) residents (Resident #139 & Resident #242) reviewed for Notification of Change out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1). On 03/25/2024 at 09:30 PM, Resident #139 was found sitting on the floor with a laceration to the left eyebrow that required hospitalization. There was no documented evidence Resident #139's designated representative and/or next of kin was notified of the change in their condition, and 2). On 12/03/2025 at 03:09 PM, Resident #242 was noted with a skin opening to the left dorsal foot. There was no documented evidence Resident #242 designated representative and/or next of kin was notified of the change in their condition. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: 5Number of residents cited: 2 Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification and Complaint (#2630760 and #607117), the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment including injuries of unknown origin are reported immediately, but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made to the State Survey Agency. This was evident for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for Abuse (Resident #126 & Resident #242) out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1.) On 4/12/2024 at 7:00 AM Resident #126 was observed with facial discoloration/redness to right and left eye and surrounding skin and redness/mild swelling to forehead and eyelids. Resident #126 was unable to explain the injury and the Administrator was first made aware of the incident at 9:00 AM. The injury of unknown source was not reported to the New York State Department of Health until 04/12/2024 at 1:57 PM, and 2.) On 11/21/2025 at 6:00 AM, Resident #242…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00343684 and NY00337964), the facility did not ensure that the alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later that two (2) hours after the allegation is made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation do not involved abuse to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Agency).This was evident for six (6) out of six (6) residents (Resident #2, #3, #4, # 5, #6 and Resident #7) sampled. Specifically, on 04/18/2024 at 5:50 AM, License Practical Nurse #2 saw Resident #3 wandered into Resident #2's room and sat on the bed. Resident #2 kicked and pulled Resident #3's arm to get Resident #3 out of the room. The facility reported the incident to New York State…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00323497), the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a nursing home staff. This was evident in one (1) out of three (3) residents (Resident #1) sampled for abuse. Specifically, on 09/07/2023 at approximately 2:15 PM the Occupational Therapist reported to the Director of Nursing that Resident #1 was observed in the dining room with a black eye. Resident #1 reported that they were punched in the eye by a crazy lady and identified Registered Charge Nurse #1 as the person who punched them in the eye on 09/06/2023 during the evening shift. Registered Charge Nurse #1 did not immediately assess Resident #1 after being told Resident was observed with discoloration to their eye. The findings include: The facility's policy and procedure on Prohibition of Residents Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property dated 03/19/2025 documented the facility residents have the right to be free from Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and misappropriation of property.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-27 · tag F0576 — patternEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 9/20/2023 to 9/27/2023, the facility did not ensure residents' right to send and receive mail. This was evident for 9 of 9 attendees (Resident #39, #151, #100, #181, #83, #185, #67, #96, and #147) of the Resident Council meeting conducted on 9/21/2023. Specifically, the facility did not have a system in place to ensure that residents could receive and send mail on Saturdays. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Resident Packages/Mail dated 5/2023 documented the facility to deliver packages/mail to residents who receive packages/mail from family or other resources offered from the community. Packages/mail received over the weekend and holidays will remain in the mail room until Monday. On 09/21/23 at 10:56 AM, Resident Council Meeting was held with Resident #39, #151, #100, #181, #83, #185, #67, #96, and #147 in attendance. All 9 attendees stated they do not get mail delivered to them on Saturdays and are unable to send mail on Saturdays. On 09/25/23 at 11:42 AM interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-27 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 09/20/23 to 09/27/23, the facility did not ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5% or greater. This was evident for 2 of 35 medications observed during medication administration. Specifically, medications were not administered as ordered by the physician: 1) Metformin 500mg 1 tablet was administered instead of 2 tablets(1000mg), and 2) Amlodipine 5mg 1 tablet was administered instead of 2 tablets(10mg) to Resident #134, leading to a medication error rate of 5.69%. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Medication Administration Guidelines dated 1/4/23 documented that medications should be administered as ordered by the Physician. Resident #134 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The current Physician's order (PO) as of 9/22/2023 documented Resident #134 receive Metformin 500mg 2 tablets = 1000mg by mouth twice a day at 9am and 5pm. The PO documented Amlodipine 5mg give 2 tablets = 10 mg by mouth once…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey of 9/20/23 through 9/27/23, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during Kitchen observation. Specifically, 1) open produce was stored without a date in the freezer, boxes were stored directly on the freezer floor, and the mixer was observed soiled with grease and grime; and 2) the refrigerator temperature was observed above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The findings are: An undated policy titled Receiving and Storage and Issuing documented food items are stored on shelves at least 6 inches above the floor and 18 inches below the ceiling. All perishable food items are stored in either refrigerators or freezers maintained at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or below, and 0 degrees F or below. No food items will ever be stored on refrigerator or freezer floor. 1) On 9/20/23 at 9:29 AM, the Food Service Director (FSD) and Food Service Supervisor (FSS) were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 24 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 09/20/23 to 09/27/23, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained. This was evident for 6 (Resident #171, #21, #38, 134, #191 and #173) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Registered Nurse (RN) #7 was observed using the same Blood Pressure (BP) cuff with Resident #171, #21, #38, and #134 without cleaning and disinfecting the BP cuff in between each resident, and RN #3 was observed using the same the Blood sugar/glucose machine (Glucometer) with Resident #191 and #173 without cleaning and disinfecting the Glucometer in between each resident. The findings are: The facility policy titled Multipurpose equipment cleaning, revised 08/2023, documented that all multipurpose equipment must be cleaned and disinfected between resident use, with germicidal/microbial disinfectant disposable wipe. The equipment includes the BP cuff and the Glucometer. On 09/22/23 at 09:54 AM, RN#7 was observed in the dining room with the BP machine. RN #7 did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-27 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the Recertification/Complaint survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident was provided with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their ability to ambulate. This was evident for 1 (Resident #129) of 4 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) out of 38 sampled residents investigated. Specifically, Resident #129 was not provided with floor ambulation program (FAP) as per Rehab assessments, and in accordance with physician's orders. The findings are: The facility's policy titled FAP dated 01/2022 documented that residents requiring assistance to ambulate will be assigned to a floor ambulation program to be completed by nursing in conjunction with or upon completion of a formal physical therapy program or as deemed necessary by a Physical Therapy assessment or by Nursing. Resident #129 had diagnoses that included Hypertension and Peripheral Vascular Disease. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-27 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview conducted during the Recertification/Complaint survey, the facility did not ensure that the resident and their representatives were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan (BCP). This was evident for 3 (Residents #85, #164, and #176) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #85 was not provided with a copy of their BCP, 2) Resident #164 was not provided with a copy of their BCP, and 3) Resident #176 was not provided with a copy of their BCP. The findings are: The facility policy titled BCP/Care Plan Summary dated 09/25/2023 documented the facility promotes the resident's right to be informed of the initial plan for the delivery of care and services and to receive a written summary of the baseline care plan. 1) Resident #85 was admitted to the facility 06/01/2023 with diagnoses of coronary artery disease (CAD) and Parkinson's Disease. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #85 had moderate cognitive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-27 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and complaint survey from 9/20/2023 to 9/27/2023, the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a resident's status. This was evident for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Residents # 32). Specifically, the MDS assessment for Resident # 32 did not reflect Tracheostomy care. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Resident Assessment revised 9/2023 documented the Registered Nurse (RN) conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals. The policy further states the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status and provide mandated information on each resident's condition. The RN coordinator signs and certifies assessment completion, while everyone who completes a portion of the assessment certifies the accuracy of the assessment. Resident # 32 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Tracheostomy status,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 9/20/2023 to 9/27/2023, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan (CCP) for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #194) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, a CCP related to pain was not developed for Resident #194. The findings are: The facility policy titled CCP dated 12/2022 documented the CCP will be initiated, and appropriate care plans will be in place when there is a change in resident condition. All other episodic care plans will be reviewed as needed to ensure goals and interventions will produce positive resident outcomes. Interdisciplinary development of care plan that will improve the resident's functional abilities and addresses their questions and concerns. Resident # 194 had diagnoses of Unspecified Pain and Schizophrenia. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #194 had mild cognitive impairment. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated (NY00314342) survey from 09/20/23 to 09/27/23, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision and an environment free from accident hazards for a resident. This was evident in 1 (Resident #166) out of 5 residents reviewed for accidents out of 35 total residents sampled. Specifically, Resident #166 was noted to be missing from Unit 2 and was found on Unit 3, which was a locked unit. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Elopement Prevention dated 06/23 documented that it is the policy of the facility to electronically monitor residents who may tend to wander from the safety of the building, without sacrificing their freedom of mobility or their quality of life. Resident #166 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Depression and Dementia. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #166 was severely cognitively impaired and did not exhibit wandering behavior. An…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification and complaint survey from 9/20/23 to 9/27/23, the facility did not ensure a resident was provided pain management consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident # 194) out of 3 residents reviewed for Pain Management out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident # 194 received Tylenol pain medication without ongoing monitoring of the efficacy of the pain management. The findings are: The policy titled Pain Management dated effective 1/2008, latest revision on 8/2023 documented the nurse should document the pain scale reported by the resident and a pain scale after interventions were rendered. Resident #194 had diagnoses of unspecified pain and schizophrenia The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #194 had modified cognitive skills in decision making, received Tylenol pain medication 7 out of 7…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-05-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure (1). safe food handling and storage was practiced to prevent food-borne illness, and (2). food was prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards of food service safety. Specifically, a container of Ricotta Cheese was not discarded on or before the expiration date and hand hygiene was not performed prior to handling food after picking an item up off the floor. This was evident during the Kitchen Observation facility task. The findings are: 1) The undated policy and procedure titled Food Labeling, Dating and Rotation of Food Supplies documented that perishable foods such as cottage cheese that are provided an expiration date on the container will be dated when the container is opened. This will not shorten the shelf life of the product but will enable the staff to use this container first. The policy Food and Supply Storage: Precenting Contamination dated 08/2009 documented under supervisor monitoring it will…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-05-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infection prevention control practices were followed to help prevent the spread, development, and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, (a). 4 residents on oxygen/nebulizer treatment were observed with the tubing not properly labeled and dated to indicate the time the tubing was replaced, (b). 1 resident receiving oxygen therapy was observed with tubing touching the floor on multiple occasions, and (c). the facility did not have a functional site-specific water management plan for Legionella, an annual facility risk assessment for Legionella, a Legionella sampling plan, and the facility did not describe control measures and actions to be taken if control measures were not met. This was evident in 4 of 5 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care area/Oxygen use out of a sample of 35 residents. (Residents #25, Resident #69, Resident #180, & Resident #138) and for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-05-11 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that a surety bond or similar protection with the amount equal to at least the current total amount of resident's funds. Specifically, the surety bond held by the facility did not cover the total amount of resident personal funds deposited with the facility. This was evident for 183 of 218 residents who maintained personal funds accounts at the facility. The findings are: On 5/7/21 at 10:00am, the Administrator presented a surety bond in the amount of $300,000 with an effective date of 11/02/2020 and termination date of midnight 11/02/2021. The facility document titled Patient Account Cash Worksheet dated 5/7/2021 documented the current total amount of resident's funds was $664,363.87. The facility did not ensure that the value of the surety bond covered funds currently held in all residents accounts. On 05/10/21 at 02:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Resident Fund Account Coordinator (RFAC). The RFAC stated that residents fund is kept in a separate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-05-11 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure individual resident financial records were made available to resident and resident representatives through quarterly statements. Specifically, quarterly statements were not provided in writing to residents and/or resident representatives within 30 days after the end of the quarter. This was evident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for Personal Funds out of a sample of 35 residents (Resident #46, #64, and #103). The findings are: The facility policy on Quarterly Statements dated 10/10/2006, last revised 05/2021 documented that resident will be provided with a copy of quarterly statement and will be asked to sign acknowledging receipt of same. For all residents who are unable to sign to acknowledge receipt, two copies will be sent to the legal/designated representative with a cover letter requesting one copy be signed and returned in an enclosed, self-addressed envelope to the facility. (1).…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-05-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) that included measurable goals and objectives and interventions was not developed to address the resident's diagnoses of Urinary Tract Infection. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Urinary Catheter out of a total of 35 sampled residents. (Resident # 174) The finding is: The undated facility policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) with documented problems, goals and approaches will be entered on admission, readmission or whenever a new problem is identified or required revision. Resident # 174 was admitted to facility on 11/17/2020 with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-05-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for a resident is reviewed and revised based on changing goals, preferences and needs of the resident. Specifically, the CCP for a resident with an Intravenous Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (IV PICC) was not reviewed and revised after the catheter was re-inserted. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Infection/Transmission-Based Precautions out of a sample of 35 residents. (Resident #128). The findings are: The facility Policy on Peripheral IV Catheter Flushing dated 01/2021 documented peripheral catheters should be flushed with the prescribed flushing agent following conversion of a continuous IV therapy to intermittent IV therapy. Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), and Methicillin Resistant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-05-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that care and services are provided according to accepted standards of clinical practice. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that a resident with Intravenous Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (IV PICC) line for antibiotic is provided with care and services to prevent further infection. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Infection/Transmission-Based Precautions out of a sample of 35 residents. (Resident #128). The findings are: The facility policy on Peripheral IV Catheter Flushing dated 01/2021 documented peripheral catheters should be flushed with the prescribed flushing agent following conversion of a continuous IV therapy to intermittent IV therapy. Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), and Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-05-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that irregularities identified by the pharmacist and forwarded to the facility were acted upon. Specifically, the facility failed to document in the resident's medical record that irregularities identified by the consultant pharmacist had been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address the issues. This was evident for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of a sample of 35 residents. (Resident # 71) The finding is: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility 02/20/2018, with diagnoses that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Seizure Disorder, and Psychotic Disorder. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident had severe impairment in cognition with long and short-term memory problems. The MDS documented the resident has behavioral symptoms of being fidgety or restless, moving around a lot more…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-05-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that medication and biologicals were discarded by expiration date. Specifically, a tube of Glucose gel was observed in a cabinet in the medication room past the expiration date. This was evident on 1 of 5 units reviewed for Medication Storage (Unit 6). The findings are: The undated Horizon Care Center Pharmacy Manual titled Nursing Station Inspections, documented the Pharmacy consultant shall monitor medications stored at all nursing stations on a monthly basis and the purpose to ensure the correct usage, storage, and maintenance of all medications. Procedure for compliance shall be discussed with any nursing staff. The Pharmacon Nursing Station Evaluation form for the 6th Floor dated 03/16/2021 and 04/22/2021was reviewed and annotated with a check mark indicating (yes) to item 4 (a) Are all expired or discontinued drugs removed promptly? On 05/10/2021 at 12:38 PM, an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-08 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident was informed before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the resident's stay, of services available in the facility and of charges for those services, including any charges for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid. This was identified for 2 (Residents #359 and #216) of 3 residents reviewed for Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notification. Specifically, Residents #359 and #216 were not notified of their last covered day of Medicare Part A Service timely as required. The findings are: The undated facility's policy and procedure titled Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS) documented . Notice of non-coverage must be sent to resident/family member on the last day of medicare coverage. In addition, family member is to be notified via telephone call. Date and time of call is to be documented on the denial letter . 1) Resident #359 has diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-08 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care. This identified for 1 (Resident #250) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. Specifically, Resident #250 had an admitting diagnosis of Schizophrenia and was ordered Haldol (an antipsychotic medication). There was no documented evidence that a baseline Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Schizophrenia was developed. The finding is: The undated facility's policy and procedure titled Baseline Care Plan documented This is the policy of this facility to identify the resident's need and develop plan of care within 48 hours from admission . The initial care plans may include the following areas: g. Admitting Diagnosis . The facility's policy and procedure dated March 2010 documented .…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Mobility care plan was revised for 1 (Resident # 75) of 3 residents reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM). Specifically, Resident #75 was placed on a Nursing Rehabilitation Active Range of Motion (AROM) program on 8/6/19 and the Mobility care plan did not include the prescribed treatment. The finding is: The facility policy on range of motion dated 1/09 documented that documentation of actual sites with decreased ROM identified by rehabilitation will be documented by the licensed nurse on the Comprehensive Care Plan which will address the response to the prevention plan instituted. Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Peripheral Vascular Disease, Generalized Muscle Weakness, and Diabetes Mellitus. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #75 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 7 indicating severely…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-08 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that each resident was given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living (ADLs). This was identified for one (Resident #172) of three residents reviewed for ADLs. Specifically, Resident #172 had a Physician's order for a standing program to be carried out two times a day (BID). The resident was refusing the standing program; however, nursing supervision and the Rehabilitation Department (Rehab) were not made aware. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled Range of Motion-Prevention and Classification of Residents at Risk for Decrease in Range of Motion, revised 1/2009, documented that the program and the resident's response will be documented on the Certified Nursing Assistant Accountability Record (CNAAR) and the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). Resident # 172 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice and in accordance with the residents' comprehensive plans of care. This was identified for 1 (Resident #139) of 1 resident reviewed for Insulin Management and 1 (Resident #207) of 2 Residents reviewed for pain management. Specifically, 1) Resident #139 did not receive his prescribed dose of insulin or have his blood sugar reading taken as ordered by the physician; and 2) Resident #207, expressed suicidal ideation and was not assessed for suicide risk by a qualified person for 7 days. Additionally, the attending physician was never notified of the occurrence. The findings are: 1) Resident #139 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and Schizoaffective Disorder. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-08 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not provide treatment to maintain or improve range of motion for 1 (Resident # 75) of 3 residents reviewed for limited range of motion (ROM). Specifically, Resident #75 was placed on a Nursing Rehabilitation Active Range of Motion (AROM) program on [DATE] and did not receive AROM as order by the physician. Additionally, the Nursing staff was not in-serviced on the specific instructions for Resident #75's AROM program. The finding is: The facility policy on range of motion protocols and guidelines dated 1/07 documented that AROM would be conducted without the staff member providing hands-on care but rather giving the resident direction, cuing and/or demonstration to the resident. Nursing staff should consult the physical/occupational therapist for instruction/clarification on movements. The facility policy on range of motion dated 1/09 documented that documentation of actual sites with decreased ROM identified by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards, over which the facility has control, as is possible. This was identified for 1 (Resident #258) of 1 resident reviewed for Accident/Incidents (A/I). Specifically, Resident #258 used an aerosol deodorant spray towards a peer and the item was not immediately removed from Resident #258 to prevent the potential for recurrence. The finding is: The facility Resident Peer Abuse/Altercations policy dated 4/17 documented that the facility would notify the attending physician and psychologist that the resident must be evaluated following the incident to determine if they are a danger to self or others. The undated facility policy on Accident/Chemical Hazard documented that the facility will ensure the safety of residents in all instances whether it is physical/verbal abuse, or chemical altercations. Resident #258 was admitted to the facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that an annual review of the written standards, policies, and procedures for the Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) was conducted and that the policies and procedures were updated as necessary. The finding is: The facility's Infection Control manual was reviewed and revealed the following: - The overall Infection Control manual was undated. - There were many hand-written post-it notes with information that needed to be incorporated. - There were policies from an unidentified facility. - There were policies that were undated, including Standard Precautions for Infection Control and Blood and Body Fluids Exposure. - There was a policy revised in 2012 for Prevention of Transmission of Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms and a policy revised in 2013 for Hand Hygiene. The Infection Control Registered Nurse (RN) was unavailable for interview. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 10/04/19 at 10:35 AM. She stated the Infection Control and Inservice…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TENENBAUM, MATITYAHU | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 07/01/1995 |
| WEINBERGER, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| ZIMMERMAN, RALPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/1997 |
| GRLIC, NENAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/23/2026 |
| TENENBAUM, NECHAMA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335738. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-09-27, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.